Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw tribute to Pakistan Army

[Apprentice]

 

[AUz]

Don't do that. It breaks indians' heart to hear the truth that Bangladesh wasn't a military victory (even Bharat Verma accepted that lol).

I bet bhartis will come about and say oh he is just being professional and nice blah blah... lol

As the general says...Pakistanis just had no chance because they were away from their base by thousands of miles, surrounded by enemies, fighting an internal civil war, and indians had a superiority of whooping 15:1 in various sector---YET, Pakistanis fought bravely and held indians on certain sectors for more than ten days.

 

[Shinigami]

Don't do that. It breaks indians' heart to hear the truth that Bangladesh wasn't a military victory (even Bharat Verma accepted that lol).

I bet bhartis will come about and say oh he is just being professional and nice blah blah... lol

As the general says...Pakistanis just had no chance because they were away from their base by thousands of miles, surrounded by enemies, fighting an internal civil war, and indians had a superiority of whooping 15:1 in various sector---YET, Pakistanis fought bravely and held indians on certain sectors for more than ten days.

Its interesting that India's only victories have been on smaller territories which are territorially enclosed by it. Even the Portugese were not spared in Goa and their men were made Prisoner of Wars.

India breaks the world's record in winning like cowards over smaller enclosed areas.

And they are even proud of it!!!!!

LOLOLOLOLZ

time for some education, ladies.
in 1971, india had to fight pakistan in the east AND the west (such as Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AND send troops to the north to prevent a chinese invasion and spend resources in the south to avoid a US attack.

secondly the east pakistan invasion done by india was so fast, The Sunday Times of London’ wrote, “It took 12 days for the Indian Army to smash its way to Dacca, an achievement reminiscent of German Blitzkrieg across France in 1940. The strategy was the same; speed, ferocity and flexibility

 

[Kao Boy]

Hmm.. no comments until I do some more research on it...

 

[Shinigami]

Lies. You preparation against Pakistan was going a long way back.

please tell me which part of what i wrote is classified under "Lies"

 

[Desertfalcon]

in 1971, india had to fight pakistan in the east AND the west

Well, Pakistan's was also a "two front war", the difference though was that India had interior lines of supply and communication, a clear strategic and logistical advantage. Militarily, it was virtually impossible for Pakistan to keep hold of East Pakistan, which was the Field Marshal's point.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

time for some education, ladies.
in 1971, india had to fight pakistan in the east AND the west (such as Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AND send troops to the north to prevent a chinese invasion and spend resources in the south to avoid a US attack.

secondly the east pakistan invasion done by india was so fast, The Sunday Times of London’ wrote, “It took 12 days for the Indian Army to smash its way to Dacca, an achievement reminiscent of German Blitzkrieg across France in 1940. The strategy was the same; speed, ferocity and flexibility

There is no kudos in defeating an enemy that is 5 to 8 times smaller than you with limited resources, limited access to good weapons and that is fighting 1000s of miles from home. india HAS NEVER in it's many 1000s of years of existence defeated an enemy of equal size or bigger. China of 1962 will attest to that.

Please do not compare yourselves to the Germans of WW2. The Germans were fighting many enemies simultaneously who had a bigger numerical advantage and still scored victories. Unlike the indians, the Germans were not fighting nations 8 times smaller than itself. A situation made worst for Pakistan when the benglas joined in with the indians, which means Pakistan was fighting impossible odds of 15-1.

 

[Shinigami]

Well, Pakistan's was also a "two front war", the difference though was that India had interior lines of supply and communication, a clear logistical advantage. Militarily, it was virtually impossible for Pakistan to keep hold of East Pakistan, which was the Field Marshal's point.

actually it was possible to hold onto east pakistan. erstwhile SU had given india a max of 2 weeks UN veto time during which it had to sort out this matter, and the pakistanis had enough troops to mount a good defence to last much longer.
i will not disagree with you regarding the rest, but many paksitanis unfairly fail to even mention about the battles that took place in the west when they had infact outnumbered indian troops and yet failed to capture an inch of territory. infact it was the outnumbered indian troops that captured territory from west pakistan

 

[Rehan khan 1]

There is no kudos in defeating an enemy that is 5 to 8 times smaller than you with limited resources, limited access to good weapons and that is fighting 1000s of miles from home. india HAS NEVER in it's many 1000s of years of existence defeated an enemy of equal size or bigger. China of 1962 will attest to that.

15 times buddy. Listen him again

 

[Shinigami]

There is no kudos in defeating an enemy that is 5 to 8 times smaller than you with limited resources, limited access to good weapons and that is fighting 1000s of miles from home. india HAS NEVER in it's many 1000s of years of existence defeated an enemy of equal size or bigger. China of 1962 will attest to that.

i cannot blame you for parroting what you keep hearing.

lets get the facts straight:
1. in total indian army outnumbered the pakistan army by around 2:1, not 5 times or 10 times or 20 times. this still exists today
2.the problem with logistics the west pakistan troops faced happened later after the karachi bombings, ac
ually logistics did not matter much for both east and west pakistan since the war was over in 2 weeks
3."india HAS NEVER in it's many 1000s of years of existence defeated an enemy of equal size or bigger" thats becuase india back then consisted of a 100 smaller kingdoms for most of history
4."China of 1962 will attest to that." to what? any army outnumbered 10:1 and with no weapons is bound to lose? thats elementary

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

15 times buddy. Listen him again

Q

Will there you go. And indians claim to have won wars against Pakistan when the odds were stacked against them....lol

The fact that Pakistan has survived as a nation against seemingly impossible odds is testament to the strength of our military and potential which hasn't gone unnoticed by the rest of the world. Hence trump crying about our nuclear weapons.

 

[Jf Thunder]

time for some education, ladies.
in 1971, india had to fight pakistan in the east AND the west (such as Battle of Longewala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia AND send troops to the north to prevent a chinese invasion and spend resources in the south to avoid a US attack.

secondly the east pakistan invasion done by india was so fast, The Sunday Times of London’ wrote, “It took 12 days for the Indian Army to smash its way to Dacca, an achievement reminiscent of German Blitzkrieg across France in 1940. The strategy was the same; speed, ferocity and flexibility

what is this? India had invaded East Pakistan 26 November 1971, the surrender was on the 16th of December 1971, so it was a 21 day war, not 12...............

 

[Shinigami]

what is this? India had invaded East Pakistan 26 November 1971, the surrender was on the 16th of December 1971, so it was a 21 day war, not 12...............

actually the indian invasion began in the 4th dec after PAF's operation Chengiz Khan

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

actually it was possible to hold onto east pakistan. erstwhile SU had given india a max of 2 weeks UN veto time during which it had to sort out this matter, and the pakistanis had enough troops to mount a good defence to last much longer.
i will not disagree with you regarding the rest, but many paksitanis unfairly fail to even mention about the battles that took place in the west when they had infact outnumbered indian troops and yet failed to capture an inch of territory. infact it was the outnumbered indian troops that captured territory from west pakistan

Lol.......lol.........at indians being outnumbered by Pakistani troops. Pakistan was MASSIVELY outnumbered by indian and bengali forces EVERYWHERE. That is the reality. Not bollywood film reality. Too many views of the indian film border.......lol. The indian general manekshaw knows this that is why he admits that 1971 was not a meaningful victory.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

i cannot blame you for parroting what you keep hearing.

lets get the facts straight:
1. in total indian army outnumbered the pakistan army by around 2:1, not 5 times or 10 times or 20 times. this still exists today
2.the problem with logistics the west pakistan troops faced happened later after the karachi bombings, ac
ually logistics did not matter much for both east and west pakistan since the war was over in 2 weeks
3."india HAS NEVER in it's many 1000s of years of existence defeated an enemy of equal size or bigger" thats becuase india back then consisted of a 100 smaller kingdoms for most of history
4."China of 1962 will attest to that." to what? any army outnumbered 10:1 and with no weapons is bound to lose? thats elementary

Watch the clip by the indian general manekshaw who participated in the 1971 war. He says india (and probably bangladesh combined) had an advantage of 15 to 1 against Pakistan. Odds that even america probably could not overcome.

lol lol lol do some lol lol research lol lol and find lol out for yourself lol lol have you lol for instance lol heard about the battle lol of longewala? lol



lol

Ever heard about the one in which a country for nearly 50 years has been bragging about defeating a nation with limited resources that is about 8 times smaller than itself.....lol